CVLs?

[bb-56]

If Surface ships are as vulnerable to a real opponent as peopl say should the US go with Just CVLs as the capital ship?

Tough to go backwards with all the nimizes built. But you could still cancel cvx

[Werner]

The delay in construction is political.

A carrier's best defense is it's air wing. A smaller carrier with fewer aircraft is more vulnerable. It's that simple.

[bengtsson]

The delay in construction is political.

A carrier's best defense is it's air wing. A smaller carrier with fewer aircraft is more vulnerable. It's that simple.

I think the small carrier costs more per aircraft operational. A big carrier is still the best value per aircraft. Only a war with supersonic anti ship missiles will be able to settle this question. Stay tuned! We may find out sooner tha we think.

Bob B.

[Werner]

Only a war with supersonic anti ship missiles will be able to settle this question.

Doesn't seem like a stretch for a system (AEgis/SM-3) that can handle 25,000 mile per hour ICBMs. The CES gives AEGIS an over the horizon targeting reach using the Hawkeye Radar, so high-low or popup missions are no advantage for the missiles.

[Lesforan]

I think Werner makes a very good point here. The key to a carrier's capability lies in her aircraft. A carrier recieving a re-equipped air wing is the equivalent of a gun ship being refitted with new weapons.

So a bigger carrier can carry a heavier punch than a small one. Does this necessarily close the door on CVL's? I don't think so. A CVL that can be built carries a much stronger power projection capability than a supercarrier that never gets constructed for lack of funds.

Also, muiltiple ships can offer deployment options not available to single large ships, and more ships can keep unit availability higher (ships can be relieved on station while others remain).

As to vulnerability, a large carrier shouldn't be any more vulnerable than a small one. If it is dealing with a threat that cannot be neutralized by its air wing, defensive weapons systems should be equally effective from either size carrier. That's what the escorts are there for.

[Werner]

The argument for and against a CVL is essentially the argument for and against the new British carriers. The RN would have had two or three US-style CVNs if they could have gotten them from the politicians. As it is, these ships were what they got, with a total of one CVN air wing between them.

Without the Hawkeye (which even the French see the necessity for), these ships are severely handicapped from a defensive standpoint. The fact that they will sail with only a minimum number of escorts only places more demands on the airwing, and hazards them needlessly.

The Sea King AEW does not represent anything remotely like the Hawkeye with it's airborne sensors and control center, which can remain on station indefinitely with midair refueling from the carrier.

[abramsteve]

I agree completely with Werner. The British carrier is no more useful than the old Ark Royal and Illustrious. No catapult, no fixed wing AWAC capability and a small air wing which not only limits defencive capability, it reduces the punch of its striking power.

That said, I also agree a carrier built is infinitley better than one left on the drawing board. For regional power projection a CVL is an excellent tool, but for true global power a full CV (CVN even better) is the only option.

[Tom-Tom]

Regarding the british carrier, the airwing is also weird with F-35 in stovl version.(the stovl won't be built for sure at that time) Catapult launched aircraft are far more capable.

It's also a good question regarding the european defense, many small carriers with stovl aircraft, without a real capacity. European defense still has a long way to go unfortunately.

A big carrier is a good choice, as it allows more aircraft, and bigger ones.

[Seasick]

The Marine National has wanted somthing like the E-2C since the conclusion of the 1982 Falklands war. They have to fight hard for money from the French National Assembly. They wanted the F/A-18A in the 1980s for their carriers. They got saddled with the Super-Entendard because of Dassault's intense lobbying.

The USN looked at the light and medium carrier before. The light carrier idea was developed into a secondary roll for the USN's LHA and LHD force. One ship of the Iwo Jima LPH class operated as such in the Gulf in the tanker war in the mid 1980s. The medium carrier concept became the sea control carrier aka CVV. It was studied to death and put out of its misery by the Carter Administration. The manning requirments for a CV are just as high for a medium and large carrier.

[Werner]

The CVV design and blueprints were sold to Spain, which built them as Principe de Asturias

[Seasick]

Principe de Asturias is a CVV but she is operated by a smaller Navy and wasn't built in place of a CVN.

[1Big Rich]

Gents,

You're mixing the Sea Control Ship, Zumwalt's low-end, single screw carrier of approximately 17,000 tons, with his carrier replacement, the CVV of approximately 62,000 tons.

Asturias is based on a SCS modified for VSTOL operations.

The CVV was a CTOL carrier, planned to replace the Midways and Forrestals, IIRC.

Compare the illustrations below of SCS, Asturias with the CVV:








As the illustrations show, there was some visual similarities in their funnels, but they were very different concepts.

Regards,

[Francisco P. de Nanclares]

Big rich is right. The Pr�ncipe is based on the SCS.

Cheers.
Pachi.

[Werner]

Big rich is right. The Pr�ncipe is based on the SCS.

Cheers.
Pachi.

Yes, sorry for the confusion. There were so many stillborn ideas in that timeframe, though.

[Seasick]

The bad concepts from the mid 1970s came mainly from Ford's Secretary of Defense.

[Werner]

The bad concepts from the mid 1970s came mainly from Ford's Secretary of Defense.

You mean, ahem, Donald Rumsfeld?

[jjb]

Most of the criticism of the CVF is based on people judging the ship according to what they want and not what the RN want. People may not agree with the choices made by the RN but they are logical and based on their own operational needs, and by building a ship with options for future conversion to catapult/arrestor gear operation they've allowed the possibility of change in the future if situations and operational requirements change. A sensible approach IMO.

[Seasick]

You mean, ahem, Donald Rumsfeld?

If the USN was in bad shape in 1981 I would say Rummy would be 60% responcible for it.

[Werner]

Let's face it... the USN has been in "bad shape" since 1947. The entirety of the '50s and '60s was given over to air forces and ground wars. The '70s began with a fleet of AA ships that had difficulty shooting down target aircraft. Carter canceled every ship request he received. Only a brief period under Reagan saw a USN that was able to stand toe-to-toe with it's opposites.

[Guest]

Let's face it... the USN has been in "bad shape" since 1947. The entirety of the '50s and '60s was given over to air forces and ground wars. The '70s began with a fleet of AA ships that had difficulty shooting down target aircraft. Carter canceled every ship request he received. Only a brief period under Reagan saw a USN that was able to stand toe-to-toe with it's opposites.

Carter approved the Ticonderoga. The 600 ship plan that Reaganites tried to take credit for with such insane shamelessness was formulated by Carter. Look it up.

Regarding "Only a brief period under Reagan saw a USN that was able to stand toe-to-toe with it's opposites.", pray how did you envision the Soviet Navy beating the USN through the 1940s, 50s, and 60s?